From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38B248E1 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:43:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ig0-f174.google.com (mail-ig0-f174.google.com [209.85.213.174]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A3EF20281 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 19:43:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ig0-f174.google.com with SMTP id h3so6834346igd.7 for ; Wed, 11 Jun 2014 12:43:39 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20140611175433.GA10462@roeck-us.net> References: <20140610201236.GA21729@laptop.dumpdata.com> <53976840.40306@zytor.com> <20140611175433.GA10462@roeck-us.net> From: Bjorn Helgaas Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2014 13:43:18 -0600 Message-ID: To: Guenter Roeck Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: Boris Ostrovsky , Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk , David Vrabel , "ksummit-discuss@lists.linuxfoundation.org" Subject: Re: [Ksummit-discuss] Topic: Removal of code that is still in use by users but there is a better code. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 11:54 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 01:19:12PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote: >> On 06/10/2014 01:12 PM, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >> > Hey, >> > >> > I would want to propose a topic on removing code in Linux that >> > users are using - but they are doing it less and less and it >> > mostly is tied in with older hardware. Specifically how to do >> > this transition properly - and if we want to define some checklist >> > /policy to do it via. >> > >> >> I second this. Right now deprecation is entirely ad hoc... usually in >> the form "this hasn't compiled for X releases and noone noticed", which >> makes it hard to do *controlled* deprecation... >> > That is a bit different to "users are using but less and less". Personally > I would not mind leaving code in the kernel as long as it is used, but > it would be great if we had some rule that a file/driver which did > not compile for X releases (pick a preferred number for X - two years > worth of releases ?) can be removed. I suspect most people would agree with the idea that something that hasn't compiled for X years can be removed, possibly with some negotiation about what X is. But my impression is the proposal is to go farther than that, and figure out a way to remove obsolete but still-compilable code. If we all did our jobs perfectly, we would never add a change to Linux that broke compilation of anything. So if there's a file that doesn't compile anymore, I think of that as a result of a mistake somewhere along the line. We can use that mistake to deduce that nobody cares anymore, but it'd be a lot nicer to have a scheme that didn't depend on people making random mistakes. Bjorn